Zarg: "The burden is always on the person making a new claim"
Markjo: "if the "skeptic" makes a negative claim, then that counts as a claim and the skeptic does incur a burden of proof for that negative claim."
Tom Bishop: "The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics."
Irushwithcvs: "However, when you make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you "
See? several contradictory angles. However, what really clouds the issue is the nature of what is defined as a "claim".
My prediction has been validated:
Judging by what I've seen in this thread, your solution now will be to redefine "burden of proof" such that your position becomes correct; just as you questionably redefine observable physics to fit your preconceived model.
You seem to be under the impression that the fact that you dispute the definitions of terms means that the entire subject is impossible and pointless to discuss, thus conveniently nullifying anyone's responsibility to deal with it.
Unfortunately for you, words
do have actual definitions. Has it never occurred to you to check a source other than
your own wiki?
And those statements are not contradictory. No one is denying that if you
were merely skeptics, you would not hold the burden of proof that the claim is wrong. However as I already pointed out, you are
not the "skeptics" here. Not only do you deny existent contrary proof, you hold your very own claims -- indeed,
you even freely call it a "theory" -- and refuse to accept the responsibility to prove it!
Negative claims don't have to be proven. I don't have to prove that ghosts "don't" exist in a discussion on the existence of ghosts.
Even to look at evidence and say "this is not evidence" is an assertion that you need to back up. For instance, following your ghost analogy: Ghost-believer says: "Ghosts exist because I felt something brush past me in an empty room." He has made an assertion and provided evidence; he's good so far.
Only after you dispute his evidence with a valid counter-argument (such as demonstrating that wind could have created the same effect) is Ghost-believer once again obligated to provide more evidence.
But, I'm sure that when markjo says "negative", he means "opposing", not just simple denial. And a conspiracy theory
is an opposing hypothesis. Your claims about light
are opposing hypotheses. And so forth.
Funny how in the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud
I don't think you understand what that word, "indisputable", means. There are documents that do exactly that: dispute your cited evidence, point by point. Nothing in your sources (which, again, is yourself!) is new, I've seen it before and it has all been thoroughly shot down years ago. It no longer has any value outside of cheap sensationalist TV programs. This information takes no time at all to find if you are simply honest enough to allow yourself to look at both sides and stop being lazy.